In March 2025, Executive Order 14243, titled "Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos," was issued to encourage federal agencies to share and consolidate unclassified records. This directive has led to a significant increase in data consolidation efforts across federal agencies under the Trump administration. However, this initiative has raised concerns about potential risks such as data breaches, incorrect benefits decisions, fraud, and identity theft.
The administration claims that consolidating federal data aims to reduce waste and prevent fraud. Yet, there is also an apparent goal of using this data for immigration enforcement purposes. This process reportedly lacks necessary procedural oversight and public disclosure, potentially undermining legal safeguards like the Privacy Act of 1974.
While debates continue in the U.S., other democratic countries have faced similar challenges with data consolidation. These international examples highlight how linking government databases without accountability can lead to unintended consequences affecting civil liberties.
Case studies from India, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia reveal common pitfalls in integrating data for fraud detection. In India’s Samagra Vedika system, discrepancies in database records led to false positives that denied legitimate benefits. The Dutch childcare welfare scandal involved a risk classification model that wrongly accused thousands of parents of fraud due to algorithmic biases. Denmark's Public Benefits Administration expanded its surveillance capabilities disproportionately compared to its task of detecting fraud. Australia's Robodebt scheme inaccurately calculated debts based on flawed income averaging methods.
These examples underscore the complexities of merging large datasets and the potential for errors that could wrongfully deny benefits or flag individuals for investigation. Without sufficient resources dedicated to resolving these mismatches and ensuring data quality, inaccuracies are likely.
Moreover, opaque decision-making systems exacerbate harms by preventing oversight and redress when issues arise. In some cases, proprietary rights claimed by private companies developing these systems hinder transparency and accountability.
Data repurposing beyond its original intent poses another concern. The federal government's access to state databases increases the risk of personal information being used for unintended purposes like immigration enforcement.
The case studies illustrate real harms associated with federal data consolidation efforts abroad—harms that could manifest similarly in the U.S. CDT opposes centralized government databases due to their potential threats to privacy and civil liberties while failing to achieve intended outcomes.